Belief and certainty in global warming on the rise

Only 18 percent of the US now denies the reality that the globe has gotten warmer.

A growing majority of the American public thinks that the world's temperature is rising, according to the latest telephone survey conducted by the Associated Press and German market research group GfK. When asked whether the world's temperature has been increasing over the last century, 78 percent of respondents thought that this probably had been the case, up from 75 percent when the same question was posed in 2009. Falling in the midst of the e-mail controversy at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and following a number of harsh winters, the 2009 figure marked a 15-year low. More dramatic is the swing in certainty. Among those who think global warming has occurred, 57 percent describe themselves as either extremely or very sure, compared to 43 percent in 2009.

Despite these numbers, there is still a core group who refuses to accept the extensive evidence that the world has gotten warmer. The proportion of those who believed warming had probably not been happening was 18 percent, down from 22 percent. And their belief is getting shakier: their certainty was down to 31 percent from 52 percent in 2009.

Another significant change since 2009 is among the 32 percent of respondents (up from 30 percent) who have little to no trust in scientists on environmental matters. Among this group, 61 percent now believe global temperatures have increased over the last century, up from 47 percent.

Support for government action on global warming is also up, with 57 percent of respondents believing the US government should do "a great deal" or "quite a bit," compared to 52 percent in 2009.

Though the number of Americans who think the globe is warming appears to be growing, the total falls short of a 2006 peak when, within a year of Hurricane Katrina, AP polling indicated that 85 percent thought world temperatures were increasing. Belief has fluctuated between 70 and 85 percent since polling began.

Doesn't this fall largely within party lines? there's more Dems because large population centers tend to be mostly liberal.

You mean large population centers like Dallas, TX, for example (Red)? Or one of the many locations that completely contradict your obvious troll?

To answer your REAL question, no, this isn't just a political issue. And I think its safe to say that far more than 18% of the country identify as Conservative. I know it's hard to believe, but there are those on both sides of the isle and everywhere in between that actually believe the science.

Doesn't this fall largely within party lines? there's more Dems because large population centers tend to be mostly liberal.

I think it does fall within party lines, and I think that global-warming denial has become part of GOP's "brand", for lack of a better word. I know several people over the years who have become FOX news-style republicans, and it's amazing how they have all swallowed this libertarian/anti-secular/GW-denial trifecta. And none of them had any strong feelings about any of it before, so I don't think it's simply self-selection.

I wonder how many believe human activity has *contributed* to the change. (And for those of you about to kick me, please note I didn't say "caused".)

You're not in very much luck, I think you're still going to get kicked for NOT saying caused.

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about climate change without getting kicked.

<puts "Kick Me" sign on back>

I'm personally in the "Yes it's happening, yes humans contribute to it, no humans are not the entire cause" camp. Assuming humans are 100% responsible for climate change is highly egotistical - climate change occurred long before humans learned how to burn hydrocarbons to create energy and use CFCs to cool our houses and propel hair spray.

1. Skepticism about the accuracy of historical record keeping and current global temperature averaging techniques - basically the claim here is that adjustments, siting issues, and interpolations are causing most of the trend.

2. Skepticism about the attribution of warming to CO2. These range from claiming that CO2 can't cause warming at all, to claiming that there will be offsetting negative feedbacks, to claiming that the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than the models indicate.

3. Skepticism about future projections of warming and its impacts.

And many different shades of these three. So there is a good deal of complexity to lack of belief in global warming. And this is matched by the complexity of the global warming hypothesis - which is not some sort of monolithic theory. It's got many different parts, and each has it's own supporting/detracting set of evidence, with different levels of confidence.

Though it might be politically expedient to paint everyone with the same "denier" brush - somebody in camp #3 has a much stronger case than somebody in camp #1.

I believe climate change to be a naturally occurring phenomenon. I'm all for ending our dependence on coal and oil, but not for the reasons most people are. The "Medieval Warm Period" alone is enough to make one question our part in the Earth's fluctuating temperatures.

Doesn't this fall largely within party lines? there's more Dems because large population centers tend to be mostly liberal.

I think it does fall within party lines, and I think that global-warming denial has become part of GOP's "brand", for lack of a better word. I know several people over the years who have become FOX news-style republicans, and it's amazing how they have all swallowed this libertarian/anti-secular/GW-denial trifecta. And none of them had any strong feelings about any of it before, so I don't think it's simply self-selection.

The question is whether public view (at least within Republicans) will move away from the party position. Is the shift in the views of Republicans outpacing the shift in the party's position?

It may be that the shift is just from one type of skepticism to another (kind of like the stages of grief, I guess -- denial was first, maybe we're now up to "bargaining" about the details), but even in that case it would be interesting if a mismatch arises.

I wonder how many believe human activity has *contributed* to the change. (And for those of you about to kick me, please note I didn't say "caused".)

Those who actually follow the accumulating data will say little if at all. It's sad that even here in Arstechnica you have the zealots who will name call and ridicule you for daring to question their chosen belief that humanity is driving any changes in our climate. worse they trash anything you share that supports your view w/o actually refuting the actual data. They will attack the sources as "unreliable" or "deniers" or say they are in the pocket of big oil IF they even bother to acknowledge the data you are presenting. In their warped view of the world no unbiased scientist would ever doubt their side.

It should be ridiculed if all things point to the obvious, and you still wish to deny it without presenting evidence. So yeah the ridicule is deserved. Otherwise, please present some evidence - probably stuff that has been disproved, but I will keep an open mind.

Otherwise, without evidence, please show why you have faith in your belief beyond all evidence should be believed. Please do. You might get ridiculed though.

Doesn't this fall largely within party lines? there's more Dems because large population centers tend to be mostly liberal.

I think it does fall within party lines, and I think that global-warming denial has become part of GOP's "brand", for lack of a better word. I know several people over the years who have become FOX news-style republicans, and it's amazing how they have all swallowed this libertarian/anti-secular/GW-denial trifecta. And none of them had any strong feelings about any of it before, so I don't think it's simply self-selection.

Glad someone saw the point I was making: It seems that social/moral groups are much more important to these results than most other factors, though the much lower result of all out deniers is certainly encouraging.

Honestly, I care far more personally about people coming up with their own decision, based on the evidence, than I do them agreeing with me. At least someone who is willing to do something other than parrot a party line can be reasoned with. The other kind tend to just start using ad absurdum or ad hominem when you disagree with them.

I assume a hypothetical Ars in the 19th century would run articles on the disappearance of passenger pigeons, followed by angry commentators pointing out that there's 'no way' humans could possibly hunt a species into extinction, or perhaps covering the Cuyahoga River fire in 1868, getting comments about how there was no way industrial pollution could have possibly played a role in making the river flammable.

I'm sure the earth is warming up as it goes through it's temperature cycles that we still hardly understand. I actually don't know because I have no care at all whether it is or isn't.

You don't care about the implications of increased energy in the atmosphere on a planetary scale? Why not?

Quote:

There is nothing we could do to cause any great or lasting harm on the planet. We would kill ourselves off long before we could get to that point.

Short of an asteroid strike or other astronomical event, nothing can cause "great or lasting harm on the planet." It's all "just" change. (Although perhaps concentrated radioactive waste dumps could be problematic.) However, that ignores that humans want to survive, in general, and that that change is likely to kill us all. To put it another way, killing ourselves off IS the "great or lasting harm."

I wonder how many believe human activity has *contributed* to the change. (And for those of you about to kick me, please note I didn't say "caused".)

Those who actually follow the accumulating data will say little if at all. It's sad that even here in Arstechnica you have the zealots who will name call and ridicule you for daring to question their chosen belief that humanity is driving any changes in our climate. worse they trash anything you share that supports your view w/o actually refuting the actual data. They will attack the sources as "unreliable" or "deniers" or say they are in the pocket of big oil IF they even bother to acknowledge the data you are presenting. In their warped view of the world no unbiased scientist would ever doubt their side.

It should be ridiculed if all things point to the obvious, and you still wish to deny it without presenting evidence. So yeah the ridicule is deserved. Otherwise, please present some evidence - probably stuff that has been disproved, but I will keep an open mind.

Otherwise, without evidence, please show why you have faith in your belief beyond all evidence should be believed. Please do. You might get ridiculed though.

LOL!!! Great example of what I was talking about. If you bothered to LOOK you'd see there's a PLENTY of data which contradicts the idea that human activity is the driving force.

Doesn't this fall largely within party lines? there's more Dems because large population centers tend to be mostly liberal.

You mean large population centers like Dallas, TX, for example (Red)? Or one of the many locations that completely contradict your obvious troll?

To answer your REAL question, no, this isn't just a political issue. And I think its safe to say that far more than 18% of the country identify as Conservative. I know it's hard to believe, but there are those on both sides of the isle and everywhere in between that actually believe the science.

The rest are either in denial or have financial interests at heart.

In my youth I started out Protesting in 1969.I still keep myself involved in various causes.I must of started going to the Environment/Pollution Protests around 1970 or 1971.Eventually I came to the realization that one of these days in the Future this Planet would end up sharing a fate similar to some of the things I read in the older science fiction I love, Collect, and still read.In other words I knew years ago that the day would come when there would be hell to pay.No one heeded our Warning.No one listened.By the way my Conservative Brother still insists that Global Warming is all a Plot by Liberals.Yeah Sure, Brother ! And you just keep insisting that Humans have done nothing to Contribute to the mess we are in.The Face of this Planet will be changed and many will die in this next Century.

I wonder how many believe human activity has *contributed* to the change. (And for those of you about to kick me, please note I didn't say "caused".)

Those who actually follow the accumulating data will say little if at all. It's sad that even here in Arstechnica you have the zealots who will name call and ridicule you for daring to question their chosen belief that humanity is driving any changes in our climate. worse they trash anything you share that supports your view w/o actually refuting the actual data. They will attack the sources as "unreliable" or "deniers" or say they are in the pocket of big oil IF they even bother to acknowledge the data you are presenting. In their warped view of the world no unbiased scientist would ever doubt their side.

It should be ridiculed if all things point to the obvious, and you still wish to deny it without presenting evidence. So yeah the ridicule is deserved. Otherwise, please present some evidence - probably stuff that has been disproved, but I will keep an open mind.

Otherwise, without evidence, please show why you have faith in your belief beyond all evidence should be believed. Please do. You might get ridiculed though.

LOL!!! Great example of what I was talking about. If you bothered to LOOK you'd see there's a PLENTY of data which contradicts the idea that human activity is the driving force.

I assume a hypothetical Ars in the 19th century would run articles on the disappearance of passenger pigeons, followed by angry commentators pointing out that there's 'no way' humans could possibly hunt a species into extinction, or perhaps covering the Cuyahoga River fire in 1868, getting comments about how there was no way industrial pollution could have possibly played a role in making the river flammable.

Nice strawman you have there...

It's not much of a strawman. There are always people who will deny that there is a problem right up until you reach the point that only the insane would argue otherwise. I suspect it's largely human nature - people generally only deal with a tiny portion of the world and the vast majority of us have no need to think of anything outside our tiny little bubble. Inside that bubble, we don't appear to be doing all that much, and we aren't very good at multiplying the size of that bubble by the number of people doing the exact same thing.

So for every man-made disaster, you have a portion of the populace who rolls their eyes and says there's no possible way human kind could have an affect on, say, the population of an animal, or the quality of their drinking water, right up until the animal is gone and the water is on fire.

Put me square in the camp of "Sure the earth might be warming up, but humans aren't causing it".

Consider the Sun's output can vary by more than the total energy the human race has ever consumed* and we're pretty small on the overall scale of things!

* Citation needed

Also, the fact that the sun's output does vary does not automatically rule out human activity making matters worse (even much worse). So, in addition to a citation for the variability of the sun's output, you'd need a citation for a rigorous evaluation of energy inputs/outputs for the sol/terra system. Preferably done by a bunch of AGW skeptics who actually know science - you know, that group that was reported on here at Ars Technica not so long ago?

Sure there have been natural warmings in the past, not caused by man. That doesn't mean this one isn't caused by man. We've had lots of floods but the Jonestown flood was certainly a man made one.

The laws of physics show that there are only so many ways the earth can warm. It pretty much comes down to either more energy entering earth or more of the existing energy being retained. We know there isn't any more energy entering earth as we've been monitoring solar output for quite some time and seen no increases. New methods of analyzing the past solar incidence on the earth are coming forward, we'll see what they say about causes in the past.

Retaining existing energy can happen through natural causes as well, CO2 from natural resources, volcanism, etc.... Again these causes have been studied and are not causing the current warming.

To say man kind can't have this large of an effect -- we're currently putting out CO2 at the rate of 10 volcanos, every single year. A single volcano can have a short term measurable effect on the climate, and we're doing 10x that every year.

Reducing CO2 and increasing energy creation away from fossil fuels should be the most conservative answer to these facts. Everything comes down to hoping for it not being as bad as the models predicted (when current indicators are that models are under-predicting and things are happening faster than the models say) or some unknown natural side-effect will save us (when so far most of the side-effects like melting tundras and methane releases in the ocean are making it worse) or some brand new technology will allow sequestration (we can't even store solid nuclear fuel very well and you think we can store gas forever?) or global climate engineering will save us from ourselves. We see the effects of unintentional tampering with the climate and now we want to do it on purpose?